Fencing with Sabers
 

To be sure: I use the word "fencing" as an equivalent of "swordplay", " sword fight" etc. It always has a meaning of "practical, military use". Choose your own favourite meaning, but be sure: this has nothing to do with the modern, official, Olympic sport.
Now we can start.
I just started re-reading the book by Wojciech Zablocki " Ciecia Prawdziwa Szabla", Warszawa 1989. ISBN 83-217-2601-1. Loose translation: Realistic use of a saber.
Mr. Z. is a famous Polish Olympic fencer who decided to evaluate the practical worth of different sabers as fencing (remember the first paragraph!) weapons.
To this end, he combined his training with the following research methods:
1.Studies of historical sabers in museum and private collections. This is quire remarkable: he personally used a total of 307 sabers: 15 Persian shamshirs, 23 Russian, 12 Arabian/Moorish, 6 Turkish 15th century, 27 Turkish 16th century, 23 Turkish 18-19th century, 2 Shashkas etc, etc, etc. These sabers were tested by him both during horseriding as well as on foot to get an idea of their suitability as cavalry weapons as well as infantry weapons.
2. Understanding of the mechanics of different sabers: eg, Kilij with Yelman and pistol grip; Nimcha with its characteristic handle; Shashka with no guard; Shamshir with highly-curved blade and a pommel bent 90 deg; Polish saber with thumb-ring etc, etc.
3. Analysis of old fencing manuals of 16-17th cen. and military drill handbooks of 18-19th century
4. Analysis of primary references: diaries of Polish noblemen describing saber encounters .
Altogether, this is, in my mind, the best study of the true working parameters of different sabers.
Conclusions:
Most of the described saber bouts were fought on foot.
Most of the damage was done to the head and Rt. arm
Multiple parries and ripostes were the rule
A saber bout between two horse riders produced many injuries but few fatalities.
Examples:

Late Kilij: very versatile, can be used for swinging cuts (on horseback) and circular cuts (on foot)

Moroccan: good for swinging cuts from the elbow.

Karabelas ( Polish type II, Russian, Turkish, Persian, Moldovian, Armenian): so-so, good mainly for circular cuts on foot. Mainly for decoration.


Shashka: ... very good for swinging cuts from horseback, good for circular cuts.The lack of hand protection makes normal parries impossible; only swing parries and side-withdrawals ( djigitovka) on horseback were used

Polish saber Type I ("hussar saber"): thumb ring enables quick direct cuts when duelling on foot. The center of percussion permits strong swinging cuts to be delivered from horseback. ...one of the best and most versatile sabers of the world.

His severest criticism is reserved for...
Persian shamshirs: "... are not the best for it is difficult to stop and to change the direction of a stroke. It seems that the high opinion enjoyed by Persian sabers was due rather to poetry and miniatures, than to the reality"

Any opinions?

Ariel,
Is this book written in Polish?
Sounds like a really interesting book and I love the idea behind it!!!

I am in no way qualified to give my opinions of what is written, since the art and swords behind the research is not my forte. I still love the thought of it!!!

It is in Polish but there is a brief English synopsis.

I will have to start looking for it online. Do you know of anywhere in the states to buy it?

Ask Wolviex on this Forum. The best source by far!

Well, If one wishes, one can raise many counterpoints to this study, starting with the fact that he did not train with shamshir and therefore might have misundertood the nature of shamshir fencing. However since there is not a single person alive who "really" knows how to use shamshir (i.e. studied under Shah Abbas or something), I guess this comment can be applied to any study of shamshirs.

Attached are a few drawings (c) by Nakov - unsheathing shashka, circular cut, correct way to hold the grip.

So the Polish auther states...

That the Polish saber is "one of the best and most versatile sabers of the world."


mmmmmmm A Slight national pride involved in his oppinion perhaps?

Or with greater benifit of the doubt, perhaps familarity over many years with the style affecting his judgment slightly?

Sounds an intresting work though.

Spiral

Thanks for the intrinsting thread Ariel!
There was a post started by me on Polish hussars sabre link
so if someone is interest just take a look here.

I'll pass comment now, because of hell I have around for the next few days, so I'll wait until I can take a breath.

The book by Zablocki mentioned by Ariel is quite rare and highly expensive even in Poland, with prices deffinietely over 40$, not mention shipment fees for overseas countries. But if someone really needs the book (which is full of pictures of sabres with measurements) just let me know, I'll do my best, thought it's not easy (I even stopped selling the title on ebay months ago).

Regards!
Michal

Very interesting ariel, thanks for the heads up, I always like the idea of comparing the different types of sabres in the world. Anyway, is there a place where I could buy that book?

As to the shamshir, I always thought that had too much of curve, to use for anything other than swinging cuts from horseback.

Also, if that's too much to ask, where did Mr. Zablocki place arabian swords, and what he commented about them? :D

Surely, there was a lot of national pride and there is, indeed, something to be proud of! However, he also values Swiss cavalry sabers very highly.
I handled a couple of Polish Hussar sabers and they are a dream! The balance is perfect, the thumb ring allows one an almost microscopic degree of blade control and thrusting is easily accomplished. Importantly, the limited curve allows one to use the very point of the blade and even a slight facial cut would disorient the opponent and allow the definitive movement to be made.
I also agree with him and Saqr about shamshirs: they are far too curved. What it means in practice, the percussion point is too far from the tip. It is ideally suited for mowing down fleeing infantry enemies from the horseback because the height of their heads and torsos will match perfectly the distance to the percussion point. However, the blade's point (tip) is so far behind that to use it one needs to overextend the arm and even twist the wrist down. In a one-on-one combat that would mean opening the head and the right arm completely with no possibility of quick recovery. Also, the thrust is virtually impossible, because the axis of the arm and that of the blade can not coincide under any circumstances.

Zablocki belongs to the Polish school and assigns a lot of importance to the handle. This element, in his opinion, determines the style of usage.He says that the Eastern Arabian (he calls them Damascus) were influenced by Turkish and Persian sabers and are good for swinging cuts from the horseback. Moroccan sabers are also suitable for swinging cuts from the elbow and he loves the support for the little finger.
Here we have a problem: there were so many different blade types used in Arabia that each had its own advantages and problems. My guess (and it is a very personal view) that the obtuse angle of the Arabia-proper sabers would not provide enough support for the hand.
He also does not say anything about Tulwars because he analyzed only sabers that had potential influence on Polish ones. I would love to know what he thought about the ( in my opinion, awful) disc pommel.
Generally, he does not rate them in any order. In his opinion, the Hussar Polish saber is the best (and I agree) and the Shamshir is the worst. Everything else has its own pluses and minuses. However, as you know, the arm attached to the handle is rather important, too :D
BTW, where did you get the shashka drawings? What is the difference between the two styles of gripping the handle( fist vs. pistol-like)? Which one is correct? I would guess the upper one is good for true swordplay, whereas the lower one mainly for swinging cuts.

Hi Ariel,

Thank you for that terrific and informative post. It would be really nice if that book could be translated.

What I write here is an additional commentary intended to clarify the concept of `fencing' with heavy weapons, and in no way disputes anything in your post. In any event, I am not sure if this belong to this forum as it pertains more to martial arts rather than collecting.

MODERATORS PLEASE ADVISE.

OK. With those disclaimer out of the way, and acknowledging your loose definition of fencing, I'll move on.

Any discussion of so called `fencing' with weapons that had other primary applications is always a vexed one. Perhaps `sword usage' would be more appropriate , as after all, sabres were intended for a specific military application rather than one to one dueling, for which there were much better weapons in Europe.

The great demarcator of sword play is what is known technically single (ST) and double time (DT) fencing. In ST play, the opponents attacks are not parried but rather evaded and then counter attacked, at times with defensive opposition or coverage provided by one's own blade. In DT sword play the attack is first parried by the defender's blade and then a fast counter attack is launched, the riposte. All too often cover or oppostion by the blade in ST, as well as beats and other actions on the opponent's blade are confused with parry-riposte play (DT). I must add that some historical fencers extend the definition of DT to parries made with auxiliary implements such as shields or daggers; Whilst this is true, it is not a common understanding of the term and renders discussion difficult and all too often meaningless.

Whilst some DT moves are possible with heavy swords, they just cannot be moved around sufficiently quickly to reliably intercepts all incoming attacks. Even where a parry succeeds, the riposte may be too slow to reach the opponent, though this is more true of point than edge play. So the weight of the sword is a primary consideration.

In Western European late 18th and 19th century sabre play, high attacks were (at times) parried and low attacks avoided, but rarely, if ever, were both parried as a matter of course, except with the much lighter spadroon. This was because of the ever present threat that the low attack was a feint and once the defender was committed to its parry, the upper regions became irreversibly exposed.

Swordplay using numerous DT moves first became feasible with the lighter transition rapier of the mid 1600s ,that superseded its ponderous predecessor, and came of age with the arrival of the small sword, a much lighter and faster weapon. Fully evolved smallswords weighed around 1Lb, a third of earlier rapiers and about half of late 18th&19th century military sabres.

Military sabres, weighing in the 1.75Lb- 3Lb range are too heavy to allow much DT play and if used alone for dueling (without a parrying implement), deliver a rather uncertain fight, one that depends too much on luck for its outcome, as was the case with the early rapier and broadsword - As a secondary consideration, numerous edge parries result in the rapid destruction of the sword. Hence the constant search for lighter and faster dueling swords, as exemplified by the perfected 19th century weapons, the French epee and the very light Italian sabre.

The primary defensive usage of military sabres was by way of covering: The defender would interpose his blade between himself and his attacker with the result that any cut made and received would land on his sword - This was a favourite technique of cavalrymen, especially if attacked from the left side - Of course, poorly made weak cuts could be parried and riposted, much in the manner of transition rapier play, but the parrying of strong cuts was a very risky business. That very little parrying was expected from military sabres is attested by the sketchy handguards found on so many.

I'll end by adding that point usage with a sabre, whilst fencing, is a very difficult business. In part because, as you pointed out, many do not allow the necessary alignment of the point with that of the arm, and in part because of their poor balance (for this kind of play). Sabres tend to have their point of balance (BP) well forward from the hilt, so as to make them effective cutters. In contrast, fast point re-alignment requires a much more more rearward BP. As well, effective point play usually requires a `on guard' position that leaves the sword arm vulnerable (to `time-cuts') .

Nevertheless, experts endowed with unusually strong sword-arms and fingers, and being well versed in point play with foils could fence well with a sabre, as for example Sir Richard Burton ad Cptn Hutton, though this was the exception rather than the rule. The English fencing historian Egerton Castle devoted a fair bit of space to this topic in his book and to which I refer readers interested in this fascinating subject. Unfortunately, IMHO, Castle was not as clear as he could have been and failed to sufficiently distinguish between the various cutting weapons and as such must be read with care - Nevertheless, he is very informative and remains one of the best resources to date in English.

Cheers
Chris

Thanks ariel. ;) I would also have liked to see what he would have said about tulwars. Which polish sabre style is he referring to, there are many?

Excellent post Chris ;)

I happen to have a little training in Hungarian and Ukrainian style sabre fighting. There are movements from Western Europe (positions, blocks, cuts) but because of open grip and no finger ring there is a room for variety of wrist flicks, tricks, and hand switching that significantly help during one-on-one dueling and melee siege.
About difficulty to stop movement of a shamshir-there is another view. You don't stop the movement. You redirect it. It goes in circular motion all the time. Sabre should live together with a warrior's body. In time of training when I did about 1000 cuts and few hundred combinations in 2 hours I felt that body adjusts to this type of movement. It started working like one mechanism to save muscule energy for long time of battle. And this is an advantage of shamshir style. Plus i think, everyone will agree, that curved blade has much more cutting power then staight one. Open grip, no finger hook and strong curvature from my point of view are much better options for a big battles then straight blade closed grip and finger hold that suites better for smaller size dueling style European fights.
But don't forget great thing that Polish did - they put their techniques on paper for future reference.
But it is just my point of view ;)

Please post away, Chris. The discussion of the martial arts of these weapons is not only on-topic, but very welcome. :)

I disagree, Saqr. :p :D Certainly the extremely curved examples are nearly useless for a linear thrust, and far from optimal for any thrust, but a slash from an unmounted fighter would work just fine with those. ;)

My only hesitation is that the functional "uselessness" of the blade segment from the point of persussion to the very tip of the sword shortens its working span. I tried to wield some highly curved shamshirs and, just like with Black Sea Yataghans, it was quite difficult to judge the distance.
Surely, a well-placed slash with a shamshir would be highly efficacious, but to place it well while pretending to fight on foot presented a problem, at least for me. Must have required a different system of fencing.

Let's not forget that Mr. Z. was a professional fencer and valued speed, economy of movements and precision very highly. I guess the ability to stop the blade, to turn it on a dime and to precisely assess the distance must have been highly valuable for him. I am unaware of any written contemporary manuals of shamshir fighting. Or Yataghan, in the same vein. In general, it was mainly Westerners who had the compulsion to classify, systematize and put on paper everyting. But, as they say " If you do not write it down, it does not exist"....

I don't necessarily disagree. As I said, it's a design that's far from optimal for the thrust, thus significantly limiting options for technique. I still wouldn't want to defend against someone on foot with one.

Were shamshir used exclusively by horseman? Were they primary weapons? I suspect they probably weren't a rank-and-file weapon in any event. I'm also not so sure we should expect every sword to be a good fencing weapon.

Thankyou, I must admit I havent handled a Polish Sabre, they do sound interesting from your discription.


I have a curved Afghan /uzbekistan sabre which while not as extreme of curve as some shamshir, but is still deafinatly heading for that catogary but Ive found if one turns it tip down instead of tip up it would thrust very well, & turning the wrist to turn the blade horizontal in a swing helps slow & allows me to redirect it. {Of ourse this implys no handgaurd parralel to the grip.}

Ive only had it a couple of months so I would guess people who grew up & trained using them may have other tecniques to minimise the percieved disadvatages some western trained swordsmen may percieve?

That said, it curve miust have been made for someone of the exact reach & movement as myself. Which Obviously doesnt always occur when we pick up old swords built for others.

Spiral

Excellent thread guys... :cool:
....I too ....would have liked to see them test the Tulwar.

Spiral,
This is the exact problem with shamshirs: we are trying to reinvent the wheel!
Unless Persians were complete dolts who created their national weapon for purely esthetic reasons and then suffered its awkward shape, they must have known something that we do not.
Seriously, they must have had a system to handle shamshirs with extremely curved blades! But unless they codified this system in a written form, we will never understand how to wield this darn sword! As I said before, "If you did not write it down, it never happened". Very frustrating.... :shrug:
On the other hand, we may be imposing different standards: we are authomatically assuming that every sword should be fit for an intricate and controlled swordplay. Perhaps, Persians did not give a fig about "fencing" and used shamshirs as pure slashers....
Nothing "Eurocentric" about it: Westerners fell in love with Japanese or Chinese swordplay head over heels. They are foreign and exotic, for sure, but there is obviously a System. Western mind loves order and control and is ready to accept a different way of expression as long as it is codified. Perhaps, "Islamic" swordplay was not rigid enough and that what baffles us.
Where are all those art and arms historians when you need one? :D
The same pertains to the Yataghan.

This is a short part from William Elton, esq., A Survey of the Turkish Empire, London, Printed for T. Cadell, jun. and W. Davies, 1799. on Turkish sabers. It might be for some interest.

Hi Zifir,

Many thanks for that most informative post. I wonder what was the weight of those Turkish sabres. Were they ever used with a shield, or always alone?

Cheers
Chris

Zifir,
Great quote!
I just wonder whether the author referred to Turkish kilijes that are highly esteemed by Mr. Z., to modestly curved sabers ( same) or to highly curved shamshirs. The statement that " ... the nearer it is to spear or lance...the better" is enigmatic: are we talking about length ( cavalry estoc?) or to limited curvature? I have never seen a saber that would be as long as a spear :D
Also, the author says that "the push with saber only is preferred for cavalry" which supports the idea that it was a primarily " one slash" cavalry weapon rather than an instrument suitable for swordplay.
Not so?

For the weight of sabers I am not very knowledgeable. As far as I understood there was no standard weight, everyone chose a sabre suitable to its strenght.

The statement about " ... the nearer it is to spear or lance...the better" is also puzzling to me. What does he mean by it is not clear. Same is valid for "crooked". What does it exactly mean in English, I am not sure if the author meant a highly curved kilij or a modestly one.

Here is some more quotes from the same book:

Thank's Zifir,
Can i find this book on the web?

Wasn't the kilij also used by infantry among the Ottoman/Turkish troups? This would inply a far more complex system of sword-play than simply slashing from horse-back.

Zifir, this quote
"Their best Turkish sabers have one great defect, brittleness; they are apt to fly like glass by a blow given injudiciously, though a person used to cut with them will, without any danger of breaking saber or turning its edge, cut through an iron nail as thick as a man’s finger."
relates well to the True Combat Value of Wootz thread...I assume a perfect draw cut would be needed to cut through the nail rather than a simple edge-on hack as that would shatter the blade?
What I mean is, would the cut nail be a result of a drawing motion or simply due to the impact of the edge?

Emanuel

Hi Zifir,

Again many thanks for your extremely informative quotes from that book.

I believe that this material is highly relevant to another concurrent thread, "True Combat Value of Wootz", and I think that you or the moderators should cross-post it there as well.

Cheers
Chris

Unfortunately, no. These are the notes that I took when I read that book long time ago. Until I saw this topic, I had completely forgotten about them. I think only places to find it are libraries or some rare book dealers if they have any copy.



I believe so. We have to be careful not to subscribe to the views of the European traveller/spy? accounts too readily. This guy was writing in a time when the superiority of Western military over Ottomans was already proven. His approach and views inescapably carry that self-confidence and also negligence over what he regarded as backward. But as long as we don't have a manuscript or a manual about such techniques, we can only speculate about it.

We cannot be completely sure but I think he refers to wootz blades. I don't know if cutting through an iron nail thick as a man's finger thing is true. We might need mythbusters to prove or disprove such a thing. :D Maybe there are some members who knows more about this, or came across such references.

Hi Zifir,

Thanks for the clarification! I can put into better words my confusion so far, and I can ask my question to the experienced metallurgists as well.
When hitting the iron chain/nail/armour/whatever, does the blade cut through the material or just break through it? Will the perfectly-forged wootz blade cut into the iron as it would cut into the wooden block, or does it split the iron from shear force?

Many thanks,
Emanuel

Emanuel, it's probably out of the topic but you may wanna check this out.

http://www.thehaca.com/Videos/NTCvid...dmaterials.htm

Excellent site Zifir!

Good demonstrations of cutting techniques. Too bad they only cover European straight swords and not curved sabres as well. Among the last clips, there is one in which the swordsman hacks into a tree (bamboo) and eventually snaps the blade in half...I think it perfectly shows a break from lateral stress as the blade bit into the wood and was pulled sideways.

Thanks!
Emanuel

Hi Folks,

1. I still have trouble understanding why we are so infatuated with one to one sword play with military weapons.

For one, we all know that military weapons evolved to do one job well and every other application was secondary - The curved sabre was the weapon of the light cavalry. For an infantryman a sword without a shield can only be a secondary weapon and even then a short sword is more useful - Long blades are very encumbering, just think of that equally long scabbard dangling at one's side, never mind the unfavourable leverage of a lengthy sword with a short handle and the ensuing tiredness.

2. We also know that excepting the bronze age ,`heroic' (in the classical Homerian sense) battle-field duels were fairly rare - Simply not enough time and above all, efficient warfare demands team work and not opportunity wasting displays of prowess by individuals. Also, we have to remember that dueling was a particularly European social phenomena, a by product of the emergence of a bourgeois Renaissance middle-class. This kind of dueling was not widely found in other cultures, and even where it was present, as in Japan, it did not take on the same formalized intensity that would demand the technical refinenement of specialized dueling swords, as in Europe.

3. We have to keep in mind that the concept of using a sword alone for both defending and offending is something that evolved from the advent of the rapier in Europe. Up to that time swords were seen primarily as weapons of offence and this is reflected in the simplicity of their hilts, something paralleled by all Eastern swords, except the Indian gauntlet sword. For defence there were shields, left hand daggers, capes, armour, or all else failing, the left hand. Egerton Castle wrote extensively on this theme and his book is worth a read; This, because blade on blade actions are fundamental and largely indispensable to the very concept of `fencing' and demand a very special sword: Light and fast! Used in this way, even the very best sabres are poor performers. It was only after Radaelli, in the second half of the 19th century that a refined and complex methodology for the sabre emerged - Up to this time the sabre was seen as a coarse tool for the military and its wileding not much of an attainment.

3.1 It is precisely because of the inability of heavy swords to afford reliable defence (even the early rapier was best used with a parrying dagger or cape) that specialized single combat swords evolved, such as the epee, and with it the art of fencing.

3.2 Something that we also have to factor into our thinking is that edge parries, even with all the care in the world, quickly destroy a sword and could only be practiced once steel production reached such quantities that swords could be treated as disposable items.

4. I find it quite ironical that the we , perhaps unconsciously, start out with the paradigm established by the fully evolved dueling sword and then retrospectively try to project it onto to all kinds of weapons that were simply never intended for that kind of usage. To be sure there always was skill in using weapons, but systematized and technically complex fencing, that is, beyond the obviously correct (smart as opposed to dumb and adroit vs clumsy) ways to use them, was the product later ages. Even in Japan, fencing was only perfected during the peaceful centuries the Tokugawas and not during the era of continuous warfare.

5. I include some historical engravings that illustrate how curved swords were used in India. I think that it is safe to extrapolate that they were used in much the same way elsewhere. These pictures demonstrate that shields were considered the way to go and not even the courageous Englishman, Mr Shore armed with a stirrup hilted sabre, thought of indulging in a sabre alone fencing match against someone with better defences. That shields later became obsolete simply indicates that the nature of the encounters fought in war changed as the deployment of cavalry changed.

Cheers
Chris

Here are the pics.

Unfortunately, because of the file size limit, the captions cannot be read. In the one of single combat we see an Englishman fighting with an Indian and both are armed with a curved sabre and shield. In the other, an English officer is rescued by an armoured Indian ally armed with curved sabre and shield.

Note how on the left plate, another Englishman intervenes in the fight with a pistol - No sense of fair play! :mad:

Cheers
Chris

Chris,
I think you are correct and that is exactly what I was saying: in the absense of original codified manuals on how to use the "Oriental " saber ( sorry for the term, but it is just a matter of convenience), we resort to European sources. The latter placed heavy weigth on " swordplay" and that might not have been true for the "Oriental" usage.
We know from contemporary travelers that "Orientals" often astonished them by their feats of whole body evasion ( jumping, shifting etc) and we also know that shields were in use in the "Orient" until very recently. This would suggest that fencing as we understand it was not developed; the techniques were reliant on one slashing cut rather than on sophisticated array of parries, ripostes, lunges etc.
what we need is a reliable description of the "Oriental" saber use, akin to multiple European manuals. Even gleaning a snippet of info here and a hint there would not be enough: too much will be filled by the compiler's bias, enthusiasm and imagination.
We need to see a Rosetta Stone of Oriental fencing: a true manual!

Hi,
The interest in swordplay with military weapons in general can sometimes be a childish fantasy of fencing enthusiasts. If you visit the fencing forums, you would come across many topics and pages of speculations on encounters of different type of swords. But I think such curiosity has a firm basis beyond a fantastic side. In Eastern European battlefields it would not be an impossible situation that someone with kilij or yatagan faced with someone with rapier or small sword. I agree that warfare in early modern age required team work and formations but still until the early nineteenth century battles were fought in very close quarters, thus close encounters with swords must have been possible.

The question comes to my mind is that what were the possible results of such encounters. I do not mean necessarily who won or who had the superior techniques, but the possible results of such experiences in knowledge basis. For example did Ottomans develop some methods on how to deal with someone using rapier, or Austrians vice versa? If we consider that these people had been dealing with each other in warfare since the sixteenth century, unlike Indian-English encounters which only took place in the late eighteenth century, it is possible to speculate there must have been interesting results of such interaction.

In that sense, my interest in a fencing manual on West Asian swords (whether it be for a kilij or a yatagan) has such concerns. But I agree that until the existence of such material is proven, it does not exist. :shrug:

If you need a book the first place to look is www.abebooks.com.

Here is the link to the hit list.A survey of The Turkish Empire by William Eton

Hi Ariel,

We are in total agreement. My verbiage is simply meant as an elaboration, and perhaps a general adverse reaction to the current interpretations of historical swordsmanship.

This whole question of what constitutes swordplay IMHO is much misunderstood. Back in the 60s I talked to a number of Eastern Euro regimental sword masters and they all said that military use of the sabre was extremely basic - This is reflected even in Patton's system. There just was no time and facilities to turn out highly skilled swordsmen in conscript armies. What counted was basic dexterity and not complex techniques. Apropos to which I recall being told that when Hungarian cavalry took part in the Invasion of Denmark in the 19th century, a military observer remarked that the highly trained Hungarians could dispense a number of cuts for every one handed out by the Danes and who were thus overwhelmed.


I think that the Euros had always a tendency to impute some supranormal abilities to races other than their own. I hasten to add that this is not entirely without foundation because from what I know of Japanese sword play, they spent enormous amounts of time and energy in developing said supranormal abilities to compensate for what they lacked by way of technique. As an aside, this is where I think that oriental swordsmanship can be very badly underestimated - Technically they may have been backward, but the psychological aspects of their training, at least for the accomplished ones gave them a huge invisible advantage.

I personally know of an Asian gentleman, now in his 70s, who is a genuine master of a martial art and he showed me some truly mind boggling displays of what he was capable by way of judging timing and distance. Not much by way of technique, but more like greatly diminished reaction time and very high quality, yet simple movements.


I totally agree with you. What we call fencing almost completely came out of smallsword usage. This is readily seen when we examine the direction that even military sword usage took after around 1700 and what inspired the changes. For example the system devised by Angelo for broadsword usage, or Radaelli's system for the sabre, which was derived from the foil. As to how much of this type of fencing was and could be put into practice, except for a few very highly motivated and trained officers, I remain unconvinced.

In the absence of anything better, perhaps you may care to read something on Japanese swordsmanship, at least to get an idea of how the Oriental mind approached the problem. I say forget the junk literature written by the enthusiasts, but concentrate instead on the works of serious academics. I can recommend some good titles if you are interested.

Cheer
Chris

Hi Zifir,

All too true ,especially by many of the current generation of historical fencers who embrace this pursuit as a form of recreation according to personal fancy, rather than with academic integrity.


European infantry abandoned the sword once the bayonet was invented, because it was a superior weapon. Rapiers and small swords were not military weapons, requiring level ground and plenty of space, and were only worn as status symbols by eccentric officers who did not expect to do any fighting. The nearest the military ever got to these weapons was by way of the spadroon, a heavy version of the edged smallsword, during the Napoleonic wars - Yet the officers who had to used them, regularly complained that they were inadequate to the task of fighting wars.

Something else that is worth bearing in mind is that infantry did not attack infantry until their formation was broken by either artillery, cavalry or musket fire and started to retreat - Otherwise, the outcome was unpredictable. Same for cavalry. In such encounters the exact nature of the weapon in hand counted for far less than discipline in making an orderly, as opposed to panic driven retreat. In cavalry melees, horsemanship and team work, and the odd pistol shot, carried the encounter. Patton made it clear that the first task in such instances was to kill the opposition's officers so that the troopers would lose leadership. He id not spell out that they were to be run through from behind, but that was the clear implication. Chivalric combat has no place alongside team work.


They were, but by the time troops closed in, one side or the other was in disarray. Where the Europeans gained the upper hand is that they had well disciplined and supplied national armies that could execute complex field manoeuvres whereas their opponents were far less organized, more like what Euro armies were like back in time, before the Renaissance. For example, disciplined and concerted use of Euro Cavalry emerged only in the late 1600s, as exemplified by Prince Ruperts troopers plundering, and thus losing a valuable military opportunity, during one of the battles of the English civil war. After that, cavalry became much better disciplined. Same for infantry - Look at Cromwell's reforms for the New Model Army.


There there always outstanding swordsmen in the ranks of all sides and these men, despite their side fleeing the field in disarray after a defat, managed to best their otherwise victors. One example that comes to mind is how Musashi managed to survive the terrible slaughter that followed the defeat of his side at the battle of Sekigahara. But these were the exceptions and did nothing to turn the tide of a battle. In war, very rarely does a specific variation on a weapon make much of a difference, supply (for one) being far more important - There were exceptions, of course, such as the advent of the flintlock and the bayonet, when opposed to the primitive matchlock musket and later the invention of the rifled musket, but not much else. Most of the real damage was done by artillery fire. Read Tolstoy's account of the battle of Borodino, and also his accounts of the irregular warfare in the Caucasus.

As a final comment, encounters with dissimilar weapons are always decided by tactics and strategy and which side did his homework better. Read Hutton's writings on sabre vs smallsword, or those of Angelo. He who knows his opponent's weapon better and has practiced for it has a huge advantage.

Cheers
Chris

Hi Folks,

Here is an interesting link:


http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/zabl...breFencing.htm

Cheers

Chris